Modvat credit allowed where returned goods matched the declared inputs broadly and shared the same tariff classification.

A broad description in Modvat declarations is sufficient where the goods remain identifiable and fall under the same tariff sub-heading. The Tribunal held that rejected final products returned to the assessee could be treated as inputs for Modvat credit despite variation between the declared description and the returned goods, because the difference between "resin" and "plastics" was not material. The objection based on mismatch in description was rejected, and denial of credit was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejected final products returned to the assessee could be treated as inputs for Modvat credit despite variation between the description of the inputs declared and the description of the returned goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that comparison of descriptions in Modvat declarations and accompanying documents does not require exact identity and that a broad description is sufficient where the goods are otherwise identifiable. It noted that the returned goods and the declared inputs fell under the same tariff sub-heading, and that the difference between the expressions "resin" and "plastics" was not material enough to defeat credit eligibility. The objection that the returned compound could not match the declared input was also rejected in light of the common tariff classification and the nature of the goods.

Conclusion: The denial of Modvat credit on the ground of mismatch in description was set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to the benefit.

---